Welcome to Lex Communis - the most respected blog in all of north-central Fresno County

I am a practicing business-litigation and plaintiff's employment law trial attorney. This site generally focuses on my interests, which include history, philosophy, religion, science, science fiction and law.
Disclosure: I write with an unrepentant neo-Conservative, Catholic, pro-Western Civilization bias.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

//On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen shamed herself with a vote that no one in New Hampshire should ever forget. That day, to her eternal discredit, she voted against a bill to help sex trafficking victims - on the order of her biggest campaign donor.

The bill was the Justice for Victims of Sex Trafficking Act. Among its bipartisan list of cosponsors are Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The bill would create a sex trafficking victim assistance fund, financed by revenue from criminal fines.
Just before the bill was to come up for a vote, the abortion lobby noticed that it contained a long-standing provision, "routinely included in spending bills," as Politico reported, called the Hyde amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of elective abortions. The call went out: block the bill.
The pro-abortion organization Emily's List attacked the bipartisan bill as Republican legislation too "extreme" to pass. Emily's List is Shaheen's top campaign donor. Shaheen dutifully voted to filibuster the bill, preventing it from being brought up for a vote.

In last year's Senate race, Emily's List was Shaheen's largest supporter, directing $250,231 to her campaign, most from members, $10,000 from the group's political action committee, according to Opensecrets.org. Since 2001, Emily's List has directed $1,151,534 to Shaheen. For perspective, her next-largest financier, the League of Conservation Voters, was responsible for $125,341.

In a statement on Tuesday, Shaheen outrageously spun her vote as a principled stand for women's health. "Human trafficking is too important an issue to be stalled because of unrelated measures aimed at restricting women's access to healthcare," she said.

But of course nothing in the bill restricts women's access to health care. It only prohibits federal taxpayer funding of elective abortions, a broadly popular position. "Most Americans have never favored using public funds for abortions for women who cannot afford them," as CNN put it last year. Blocking the bill over federal funding for abortion is not only the extreme position, it is the action that actually hurts women.

1 comment:

"But of course nothing in the bill restricts women's access to health care. It only prohibits federal taxpayer funding of elective abortions." Great quote. The irony is obviously lost on some.

"Blocking the bill over federal funding for abortion is not only the extreme position, it is the action that actually hurts women." I wonder why the same bill addressed blocking federal funding for abortions AND fighting sex trafficking. Putting the two together sure didn't seem to be in the best interests of women.

Google+ Followers

Google Mini Search

Good Read Quotes

"So you see how endlessly futile and fruitless it would be if we wanted to refute their objections every time they obstinately resolved not to think through what they say but merely to speak, just so long as they contradict our arguments in any way they can."— Augustine of Hippo